Pay dispersion and earnings for women and men: a study of Swedish doctors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Relatively little research has examined whether pay dispersion influences men's and women's earnings differently. The purpose of this paper is to fill this research gap. Design/methodology/approach The authors used survey design and multiple regressions to analyze a sample of 650 Swedish medical doctors. Findings Pay dispersion was found to be negatively associated with both men's and women's earnings. These effects were contingent on compensation informality and the individual's position in the pay structure. Specifically, when pay dispersion was high, high compensation informality resulted in women being paid less. The interaction of pay dispersion and compensation informality was unrelated to men's earnings. Also, women who were paid less suffered larger penalties when pay dispersion was higher, but their female counterparts who were paid more gained from the existence of greater pay dispersion. Originality/value Examining the structure of labor markets on individual outcomes is increasing in importance due to the boundaryless nature of contemporary careers. As people cross functional, organizational, industrial, and even occupational boundaries more frequently in their career lifetimes, they are increasingly exposed to the structural effects of external labor markets. As such, the effects of factors such as pay dispersion and compensation informality in the market are becoming increasingly significant to the fortunes of women and men facing those conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".